Members of our Litigation team secured a final decision in favor of a Maryland lead paint inspection firm following a multi-day evidentiary hearing challenging enforcement actions by the Maryland Department of the Environment.
The matter arose from the agency's invalidation of multiple inspection certificates and the emergency suspension of the company, its inspectors and its founder. After a five-day hearing and extensive post-hearing briefing, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the agency failed to meet its burden of proof and did not justify the use of emergency enforcement authority.
Why This Matters to Regulated Businesses
Regulated businesses often operate under significant agency oversight, where enforcement actions can have immediate and lasting operational consequences. This decision reinforces several core principles that apply across industries: agencies must follow required procedures, meet their evidentiary burden and evaluate conduct based on conditions existing at the time of the alleged violation.
It also underscores that emergency enforcement powers are not a substitute for engagement, notice or due process.
For businesses subject to licensing or certification regimes, the ruling serves as an important reminder that administrative authority has limits and that careful legal advocacy can meaningfully protect both operations and professional reputations.
In a detailed decision exceeding 60 pages, the Judge addressed several issues of broad importance to regulated professionals, including:
- The requirement that agencies prove alleged violations based on conditions existing at the time of inspection, rather than relying on hindsight or later observations
- The obligation to follow Maryland Administrative Procedure Act requirements when taking actions that carry legal consequences
- The limits of emergency suspension authority are absent evidence of an immediate threat to public health or safety
- The need for reliable, contemporaneous evidence when challenging professional judgment and certification decisions
The Judge also criticized the agency's lack of engagement with the regulated party before escalating to emergency enforcement, finding that the record did not support shutting down an entire business without prior notice or progressive enforcement measures.
The Shulman Rogers team approached the case with a coordinated litigation strategy that combined trial advocacy, administrative law analysis and meticulous factual development. Matt Hjortsberg led overall strategy and trial presentation, including direct and cross-examination of witnesses and preparation of written submissions. Drew Ricci played a central role in strategy, drafting filings, preparing witnesses and responding to subpoenas. Kelsey Razmic provided targeted research on complex administrative law issues. April Bogert managed and organized more than 2,000 pages of exhibits and supported the trial team throughout the hearing and Schyler Bailey conducted the final review and refinement of all written submissions.
Matt Hjortsberg commented that "[t]his was high-stakes litigation on an accelerated time frame. It required a team effort from beginning to end and Shulman Rogers delivered. I am very thankful to the firm for creating a platform that can deliver successful results for our clients."
The decision provides meaningful guidance for professionals operating in heavily regulated environments and reinforces the importance of procedural fairness, evidentiary rigor and due process in administrative enforcement actions.